I equate anti-GMO people who are against GMO products of all kinds on principle to be no better than anti-vaccination fanatics. Numerous studies have shown that GMO products are not more inherently dangerous than non-GMO products, and the studies that have alleged that GMO-products are hazardous to human health have generally failed to survive peer review or have been otherwise debunked.

GMO is just a tool - and it will be an essential tool for the next century as populations increase and we need to have higher and higher crop yields to feed everyone.

There are diagnostic tools available to the concerned scientist (or lobbying group that hires a scientist) to determine the exact chemical constituents and relative concentrations in material. It shouldn't require too much effort for someone to publish (and have peer replication) a scientific study that, say, the GMO soybean oil contains significant quantities of hazardous materials or is at least substantially different than non-GMO soybean oil.

I'm willing to believe it, as I have little trust in food processors' claims in general, but breathless Facebook posts do not a scientific argument make.

RexTalionis:I equate anti-GMO people who are against GMO products of all kinds on principle to be no better than anti-vaccination fanatics. Numerous studies have shown that GMO products are not more inherently dangerous than non-GMO products, and the studies that have alleged that GMO-products are hazardous to human health have generally failed to survive peer review or have been otherwise debunked.

GMO is just a tool - and it will be an essential tool for the next century as populations increase and we need to have higher and higher crop yields to feed everyone.

Therein lies your problem. GMO grown foods probably have LESS pesticide and herbacide contamination since they are designed to be more resistant to pests and weeds, and that's part of the deal, increasing yields and decreasing overall costs.

Arkanaut:Ah, but what if they're GMO products that have been irradiated?

LesserEvil:Therein lies your problem. GMO grown foods probably have LESS pesticide and herbacide contamination since they are designed to be more resistant to pests and weeds, and that's part of the deal, increasing yields and decreasing overall costs.

So it is completely outside the bounds of possibility that there could be problems with GMO foods? I did put the caveat that a legitimate scientific analysis would be required. Margarine was supposed to be the great, technological leap that freed us from buttery heart disease, until we realized that the artificially-produced trans fats inherent in the hydrogenization process were killing people even faster.

"Willing to believe" doesn't mean "completely unwilling to see any other point of view." Unlike some.

Wait, hold on. "Irradiation" is a term reserved typically for ionizing radiation exposure used generally in sterilization plants. Yes, microwave, radio, UV, visible light and all their friends are radiation as well, but they're not ionizing forms. Huge difference.

RexTalionis:I thought Margarine was supposed to be a cheap substitute for butter. The claims about health were marketing-speak that came about after the fact.

Margarine as an invention was largely a surprise; they were trying to figure out a way to stabilize non-saturated fats at room temperature. It was, however, billed for decades as "the healthy option," perhaps strictly by marketing but no doubt with a lot of paid-for science to back it up. And thus my significant disregard for claims by the food industry.

divgradcurl:wow, and if they could somehow be delivered via chemtrails, i think i know what will cause the EndtimesTm

RexTalionis:I equate anti-GMO people who are against GMO products of all kinds on principle to be no better than anti-vaccination fanatics. Numerous studies have shown that GMO products are not more inherently dangerous than non-GMO products, and the studies that have alleged that GMO-products are hazardous to human health have generally failed to survive peer review or have been otherwise debunked.

GMO is just a tool - and it will be an essential tool for the next century as populations increase and we need to have higher and higher crop yields to feed everyone.

factoryconnection:There are diagnostic tools available to the concerned scientist (or lobbying group that hires a scientist) to determine the exact chemical constituents and relative concentrations in material. It shouldn't require too much effort for someone to publish (and have peer replication) a scientific study that, say, the GMO soybean oil contains significant quantities of hazardous materials or is at least substantially different than non-GMO soybean oil.

I'm willing to believe it, as I have little trust in food processors' claims in general, but breathless Facebook posts do not a scientific argument make.

There are published, independent, scientific results out there already that show there is no statistical difference in amounts of various compounds between GMO and Non-GMO varieties. With the exception of the introduced protein of course.

Of course people don't realize there are actually only a few commercially available GM cultivars on the market (although because two of them are corn and soy they are pervasive in other products) and we are usually talking about one introduced protein per cultivar. And that protein is either something already approved for use (Bt, which even passes most criteria as an organic pesticide) or is from another plant that we eat already.

The problem is that for Anti-GMO people their perception just doesn't match reality. And the two studies that came out that showed negative impact from GM food were horrible from a scientific point of view and have been ripped to shreds as being very shoddy work.

Arkanaut:RexTalionis: I equate anti-GMO people who are against GMO products of all kinds on principle to be no better than anti-vaccination fanatics. Numerous studies have shown that GMO products are not more inherently dangerous than non-GMO products, and the studies that have alleged that GMO-products are hazardous to human health have generally failed to survive peer review or have been otherwise debunked.

GMO is just a tool - and it will be an essential tool for the next century as populations increase and we need to have higher and higher crop yields to feed everyone.

Chipotle's chicken, for example, is classified as a "responsibly raised meat" grown humanely and without antibiotics or hormones. In some locations, however, the responsible chicken is cooked in soybean oil, nearly all of which comes from modified soybeans in the U.S.-hence the "G" label on chicken.

entropic_existence:I'm willing to bet that 80% of the population couldn't explain at what should be say a high-school level of biology understanding what is a GMO crop is and why it is different.

BS.

GMO crops have had their insides manipulated by elitist scientists in the same fashion that Dr. Frankenstein manipulated his creature. Therefore, they are frankencrops which will cause the townsfolk to go mad with fear. This is pretty basic stuff, really.

RexTalionis:I equate anti-GMO people who are against GMO products of all kinds on principle to be no better than anti-vaccination fanatics. Numerous studies have shown that GMO products are not more inherently dangerous than non-GMO products, and the studies that have alleged that GMO-products are hazardous to human health have generally failed to survive peer review or have been otherwise debunked.

GMO is just a tool - and it will be an essential tool for the next century as populations increase and we need to have higher and higher crop yields to feed everyone.

Amen. Along with being comparable to Anti-vaxxers, I must admit the Anti-GMO crowd can be described as the Global Climate Change Deniers of the Left.(TM) Because I am also a lefty (as well as the fact that I have been a biochemist and an environmental scientist back when I was a productive member of society), this likley explains why they piss me off so much.

Irrational ignorance and vitriolic anti-science sentiments are meant to be their things, guys! Stop making Fark Independents even minorly correct!!

entropic_existence:The problem is that for Anti-GMO people their perception just doesn't match reality. And the two studies that came out that showed negative impact from GM food were horrible from a scientific point of view and have been ripped to shreds as being very shoddy work.

And thus the validity of Rex's Anti-Vaccine analogy, I suppose.

I suppose a real problem with the black-and-white, anti-GMO stance is that the people that hold it also hold valid criticisms of the food industry, like the pitfalls of monoculture, our over-reliance on heavily-processed "food products," our consumption of high-sugar seeds instead of vegetables, the antibiotic/hormone/ethical problems with meat production.

It is just going to make all those concerns seem stupid, which they aren't.

impaler:entropic_existence: I'm willing to bet that 80% of the population couldn't explain at what should be say a high-school level of biology understanding what is a GMO crop is and why it is different.

BS.

GMO crops have had their insides manipulated by elitist scientists in the same fashion that Dr. Frankenstein manipulated his creature. Therefore, they are frankencrops which will cause the townsfolk to go mad with fear. This is pretty basic stuff, really.

Good thing I've seen you in enough of these threads to not fall for it :)

Teiritzamna:Amen. Along with being comparable to Anti-vaxxers, I must admit the Anti-GMO crowd can be described as the Global Climate Change Deniers of the Left.(TM) Because I am also a lefty (as well as the fact that I have been a biochemist and an environmental scientist back when I was a productive member of society), this likley explains why they piss me off so much.

Irrational ignorance and vitriolic anti-science sentiments are meant to be their things, guys! Stop making Fark Independents even minorly correct!!

There's a writer, forget his name (Mark something maybe?) who was a big writer about climate change denial and environmental issues. During the 90's he was also one of the leading anti-GMO activists. In the last few years he has had a complete about face and has no published several lengthy articles and given some high profile talks about exactly this issue. The Anti-GMO crowd and environmental groups lobbying on the issue are doing the same thing they vilify the right for doing when it comes to climate change. Being anti-science and speaking out of ignorance.

I suppose a real problem with the black-and-white, anti-GMO stance is that the people that hold it also hold valid criticisms of the food industry, like the pitfalls of monoculture, our over-reliance on heavily-processed "food products," our consumption of high-sugar seeds instead of vegetables, the antibiotic/hormone/ethical problems with meat production.

It is just going to make all those concerns seem stupid, which they aren't.

They are all valid concerns that unfortunately get brought up when it comes to GMOs, and they aren't GMO issues. The only one that really has any relation is monoculture, because obviously for GM crops to be reliable they have to be in the same genetic background, which means one variety being grown. However it is possible to diversify to at least several strains being out there in use. Of course monoculture long predates GM as a technology. There are some very valid reasons for it, but it has significant risks, like catastrophic crop loss.

GMO labels won't do much. The non-GMO will still be more expensive, and the GMO stuff will still be cheaper.

The few that actually have the money to care will buy the non-GMO stuff, the rest of the people will continue to buy what is cheapest, and life will go on.

Unless the price of the non-GMO comes down, labeling isn't going to do anything but contribute to the smug.

For the record, I'm not really against labeling it anymore, as long as it comes with a disclaimer regarding that there has to date been not a detectable difference in the quality of the ingredient itself, kinda like any pork or chicken labeled "Hormone Free" comes with the disclaimer that regulations prohibit the use of hormones in pork and poultry.

I mean, I really hate those labels, because their intent is to mislead. The same thing is going to be a problem with any GMO labels as well. The intent is to mislead consumer into thinking there is something wrong with any food that does not carry that label. (see below).

RexTalionis:I equate anti-GMO people who are against GMO products of all kinds on principle to be no better than anti-vaccination fanatics.

Then you're a moron.

Nobody is arguing that the altered DNA is going to hurt you. The question is, "what that DNA is instructing the organism to produce?". Not everything in GMO foods is simply an instruction set to make things grow faster. Also, the entire European Union must be no better than anti-vaccers, because they have very strict regulations for this field.

"EXCLUSIVE: Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are no riskier than their conventionally farmed equivalents, the European Commission's Chief Scientific Advisor Anne Glover has told EurActiv in an exclusive interview, calling for countries impeding GMO use to be put to proof.

The endorsement of GMO safety will rattle member states where bans are in place (see background), and represents the CSA's highest-profile policy intervention since Glover became Commission President José Manuel Barroso's scientific advisor last December."

Actually, there are at least some in the anti-GMO movement that does argue this. Sites like naturalnews.com (which is a clearinghouse for all sorts of whackjobbery like the anti-fluoride movement and the anti-vaccination movement) have written several articles claiming that transgenic DNA from food will cause cancer.

Trocadero:entropic_existence: Kibbler: Oh look, it's another Fark "anybody who worries about GMO is a moron" gangbang.

What are your specific concerns?

The fact that they've driven non-GMO seed stock out of existence, and now farmers are forced to pay for the expensive GMO license.

This one is easy to dismiss, because it just isn't true. What crop can I not go and buy seed for where I can't buy non-GM varieties?

The fact that a "destroyed" crop was discovered to grow wild where it shouldn't, and Monsanto can't figure out how the hell it happened.

I am assuming you mean GM canola found growing wild? Yes it is a concern, although ANY crop can spread and grow in the wild. They are plants after all. There are approaches that could be taken to prevent this, such as generating sterile GM varieties. But the Anti-GMO movement is firmly opposed to development of that sort of crop and there is currently a moratorium on it in the US. While this is an issue to monitor and follow, it isn't a "the sky is falling, ecological apocalypse" scenario.

The fact that when this crop was discovered, a new federal bill was in place shielding Monsanto from any litigation or inquiry about their screw up.

I'm not in favour of some of the legislation protecting large agri-business of any sort from litigation. But that is a separate issue from GM as a technology and its safety.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:Nobody is arguing that the altered DNA is going to hurt you. The question is, "what that DNA is instructing the organism to produce?". Not everything in GMO foods is simply an instruction set to make things grow faster. Also, the entire European Union must be no better than anti-vaccers, because they have very strict regulations for this field.

Actually most of the Anti-GMO crowd is arguing that. People too ignorant to realize that everything we eat is full of DNA talking about how eating foreign DNA is bad for you.

I did my PhD in molecular evolution, I'm currently working in human genetics. I understand DNA and genetics pretty well. If we look at the biggest GM crops we have Bt production as a pesticide. Bt is approved for use as an organic pesticide BTW. There could potentially be issues related to dosage in terms of human consumption, but there has been a lot of work in that area beginning WAY before transgenic technology was even possible. The other major one is glyphosphate resistance. In both cases we are talking about a gene that produces a single protein or enzyme. We aren't dealing with genes that are involved in complex regulatory pathways or that create whole new metabolic pathways that could generate unexpected byproducts.

The EU regulations were enacted by politicians played off of consumer ignorance, and it's pretty obvious they were done more because of economic and trade-related issues than anything.

entropic_existence:I am assuming you mean GM canola found growing wild? Yes it is a concern, although ANY crop can spread and grow in the wild. They are plants after all. There are approaches that could be taken to prevent this, such as generating sterile GM varieties. But the Anti-GMO movement is firmly opposed to development of that sort of crop and there is currently a moratorium on it in the US. While this is an issue to monitor and follow, it isn't a "the sky is falling, ecological apocalypse" scenario.

One would think "sterile" genes being released in the wild would sort itself out rather quickly. Survival of the fittest and all that.

impaler:entropic_existence: I am assuming you mean GM canola found growing wild? Yes it is a concern, although ANY crop can spread and grow in the wild. They are plants after all. There are approaches that could be taken to prevent this, such as generating sterile GM varieties. But the Anti-GMO movement is firmly opposed to development of that sort of crop and there is currently a moratorium on it in the US. While this is an issue to monitor and follow, it isn't a "the sky is falling, ecological apocalypse" scenario.

One would think "sterile" genes being released in the wild would sort itself out rather quickly. Survival of the fittest and all that.

Yeah, depending on the approach taken anyway and which particular crop you are talking about. But basically it is meant to prevent hybridization of the crop with wild relatives or from spread of the crop unintentionally. The most common objection is that it locks people in to buying seed every year. Of course that is an objection about GM crops in general, because you can't save seed. But buying seed every year has actually been a common practice in large agricultural settings for awhile now, and predates the use of GM technology. Most varieties large producers were growing (and are growing) are hybrid strains, and only certain generations of strains are stable in terms of their traits.

I think we do have to come up with new ideas, but people are just equating factors that apply to big agri-business in general (including the large organic businesses) and using it as anti-GMO sentiment. Never mind that there are plenty of GM varieties being developed by independent scientists, non-profits, etc. It is just slow work and requires years of getting through all of the regulatory requirements.

impaler:entropic_existence: I am assuming you mean GM canola found growing wild? Yes it is a concern, although ANY crop can spread and grow in the wild. They are plants after all. There are approaches that could be taken to prevent this, such as generating sterile GM varieties. But the Anti-GMO movement is firmly opposed to development of that sort of crop and there is currently a moratorium on it in the US. While this is an issue to monitor and follow, it isn't a "the sky is falling, ecological apocalypse" scenario.

One would think "sterile" genes being released in the wild would sort itself out rather quickly. Survival of the fittest and all that.

I believe the GM canola that crossed with a close cousin wild radish was also quickly out competed by its pure strain wild cousins.

The very things that we like in domesticated plants make them poor competitors once they are outside the protected confines of a field.

Otherwise, we'd have loads of wild corn and soybeans growing across the country.

As an aside, I found this abstract while searching for "wild soybeans"